Martin, Andy, On 8/28/15, 2:41 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I started a new subject line because the way logical vs. physical >>systems >> are managed is a separate issue from the others. >> >> +--rw device >> +--rw logical-network-elements >> +--rw logical-network-element* [network-element-id] >> +--rw network-element-id uint8 >> +--rw network-element-name? string >> +--rw default-networking-instance-name? string >> +--rw system-management >> | +--rw device-view? boolean >> | +--rw syslog >> | +--rw dns >> | +--rw ntp >> | +--rw statistics-collection >> | +--rw ssh >> | +--rw tacacs >> | +--rw snmp >> | +--rw netconf >> >> >> I do not know of any systems where the logical view >> is managed with an array entry like in this proposal. >> Usually the protocol (or CLI command) picks one logical context >> and the PDU is for that one logical system. Each logical system >> is self-contained so that the data models are written for >> a single system. >> >> Putting the multiplexing in the data model >> adds a lot of extra complexity and protocol overhead for >> systems that do not have virtual servers. > >+1 > >I also believe that it is too limiting. Some systems might do it this >way, but then there are others that have the concept of "virtual >system" that works differently. For example, the virtual system might >give you your very own sandbox not just for the data model but also >for the underlying config data store. There are essentially separate >instances of a NETCONF server running (or other protocol). Well, I guess you are recommending going down the same path as SNMP where each vendor supported multiple virtual routers and instances differently. IMO, this is undesirable. Acee > > >> When it comes to converting this tree to CLI (since this >> is a common practice) the "interfaces" command will become >> "devices interfaces", "system" becomes "device system", etc. >> I don't know of any CLIs that work this way. >> >> The "nacm enable false" command will become >> >> device logical-network-elements logical-network-element 1 \ >> system-management netconf nacm enable false > >And this would be a weird place for NACM. Would there be another NACM >for logical-network-element 2? They would share the same root, so are >rules somehow merged? > >Ditto for the snmp container btw. > > >/martin > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
